The UN's enormous bureaucratic infrastructure is full steam ahead, despite original agreement being non-binding

Saturday 17 August - In December, world leaders of 165 countries adopted an ostensibly non-binding agreement that propagates a radical idea: that migration - for any reason - is something that needs to be promoted, enabled and protected.

The agreement is named the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly and Regular Migration (GCM), and now comes its implementation. The UN has not wasted any time in setting this 'non-binding' Compact in motion.

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres

At the Marrakesh Conference in December, UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres launched the Migration Network, a new addition to the UN bureaucracy, and seemingly intended to 'ensure effective and coherent system‑wide support to the implementation of the Global Compact'.

He said: 'the International Organization for Migration (IOM) will serve as the coordinator and secretariat of all constituent parts of the Network in implementing the Global Compact.'

The UN, in other words, has set its enormous bureaucratic infrastructure into full motion to see to it that the Compact will have maximum impact across the globe.

IOM director-general Antonio Vitorino has already sent a warning to critics of the UN migration agenda, saying:

'If we want to succeed in having a more humane and better world, we should resist the temptation of negative narratives that some want to spread about migration'

The Global Compact contains a provision, clearly signaling that any disagreement with its agenda will not be accepted and that the signatory states will work to dispel 'misleading narratives that generate negative perceptions of migrants.'

According to Objective 17 of the Global Compact, member states are obligated to: promote independent, objective and quality reporting of media outlets, including internet-based information, including by sensitizing and educating media professionals on migration-related issues and terminology, investing in ethical reporting standards and advertising, and (more importantly): 

'stopping allocation of public funding or material support to media outlets that systematically promote intolerance, xenophobia, racism and other forms of discrimination towards migrants, in full respect for the freedom of the media.'

UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres, in a January press conference, took it even further, not limiting himself to speech about the Global Compact:

"We need to enlist every segment of society in the battle for values that our world faces today – and, in particular, to tackle the rise of hate speech, xenophobia and intolerance... Poisonous views are penetrating political debates and polluting the mainstream. Let's never forget the lessons of the 1930s. Hate speech and hate crimes are direct threats to human rights, to sustainable development and to peace and security. That is why I have tasked my Special Adviser for the Prevention of Genocide, Adama Dieng, to bring together a UN team to scale up our response, define a system-wide strategy and present a global plan of action against hate speech and hate crimes on a fast-track basis".

This initiative should be deeply concerning and is likely to serve only to silence critics of the UN, including its agenda on migration and the Global Compact.

The EU, for its part, according to statements by Hungary and Austria, does not appear to agree that implementing the Global Compact should be up to every EU member state. Instead, the EU is working on making it legally binding, even for those EU countries who have not adopted the Compact.

'A "secret document" has been published on work by the European Commission's legal service to formulate 'lengthy and devious' legal grounds for suggesting that the compact is, after all, mandatory for EU member states', said Hungarian Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto. He added, 'Although the document was not released the way the EC would have wanted it to be, the commission has confirmed its existence'.

Whatever the legal status of the Global Compact, the EU appears to be continuing to boost migration into the continent. According to a briefing posted on the European Parliament's website:

'Europe, due to its geographic position and its reputation as an example of stability, generosity and openness against a background of growing international and internal conflicts, climate change and global poverty, is likely to continue to represent an ideal refuge for asylum-seekers and migrants. This is also reflected in the growing amounts, flexibility and diversity of EU funding for migration and asylum policies inside as well as outside the current and future EU budget'.

While world leaders continue to push for more migration, polls show that many citizens, worldwide, do not want more migration, whether in or out of their countries. According to a December 2018 Pew report:

'Across the countries surveyed, a median of 45% say fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country [in Europe the median was 51%], while 36% say they want about the same number of immigrants... In Europe, majorities in Greece (82%), Hungary (72%), Italy (71%) and Germany (58%) say fewer immigrants or no immigrants at all should be allowed to move to their countries... In several countries, most disapprove of how the European Union has handled the refugee issue. People in other countries around the world hold views similar to those in Europe'.

Even in Sweden, which is usually hailed as such a migrant-friendly country, 52% said that fewer or no immigrants should be allowed to move to their country.

Editor's comment - It is becoming increasingly obvious that the global elites and the UN do not care what the native populations of these countries think about the prospect of large-scale and illegal invasion by hordes of third-world economic migrants.